Bill O'Reilly, Hate Speech, & Dr. Tiller

Bill O'Reilly claims that "rules of civility are pretty much finished." But in December, when an African-American sports writer, who accused the NRA of being like the KKK, refused to appear on O'Reilly's show, O'Reilly accused him of promoting hate speech. He claimed that Jason Whitlock, who accurately described O'Reilly as a "TV entertainer" who is "crying about the end of white establishment America," is "using base emotion to try to injure people." The next evening, O'Reilly called out those in the media who use hate speech which he described as "speech designed to marginalize and harm an adversary, business rival or someone else the hater doesn't like." He added that those who use hate speech "want onlookers to join you in harming the person you're defaming" and that hate speech is about "inciting bad feelings against another human being." Obviously, by his own standards, Bill O'Reilly used hate speech when he defamed Dr. George Tiller whom he is stilldefaming. Never mind irony, got hypocrisy!

If there are "rules of civility," Bill O'Reilly is constantly breaking them. He routinely attacks those whom he blames for the demise of the male, white, Christian power structure. As Mr. Whitlock pointed out, O'Reilly spent his time, after the election, smearing minorities who voted for President Obama because, according to O'Reilly, these people are all just lazy moochers who are somehow stealing Papa Bear's hard earned tax dollars. "Rules of civility? Not so much! But of all of mullah O'Reilly's fatwa's, the one against Kansas abortion provider, Dr. George Tiller, was perhaps the most egregious - and considering how O'Reilly "incited" some really "bad feelings" which contributed to a climate of hate in which the doctor was murdered, the most deadly.

When O'Reilly claims that those who use hate speech use "base emotion to injure people," he was describing himself. Over the course of several years, O'Reilly, with no basis in fact whatsoever, continuously attacked the doctor as a "baby killer." (24 times) Despite his admonition to Dennis Miller that "it's always bad to use Nazi analogies," he appealed to base emotion when he compared Tiller to a Nazi and warned about "judgment day" which, thanks to the climate of hatred incited up by Bill, came far too early for Dr. Tiller who was assassinated by somebody who disliked Tiller as much as O'Reilly did (and does). While O'Reilly claims that those who engage in hate speech want "onlookers" to join in "harming the person you're defaming," he could have been describing his call for a massive protest at Tiller's clinic.

When O'Reilly says that hate speech is "designed to marginalize and harm an adversary, business rival, or someone else the hater doesn't like," he's describing what he said about Tiller which, if designed for harm, was effective. But Dr. Tiller is a true martyr to the cause of women's reproductive rights while Bill O'Reilly has been marginalized as a hateful, angry, and very hypocritical man for whom "the rules of civility" don't apply. And that's called hypocrisy! He has also shown himself as somebody who can give it but not take it. And that's called cowardice!

Showing 23 reactions

No, I have given you my opinion on it, when I said that this isn’t a valid comparison, so much as a pathetic attempt at a word trap- One that pro-life extremists employ regularly, because it’s the closest those people get to actual wit.

If we give any answer but the one you’re trying to force us into, or don’t answer… “it says a lot.” If we give the answer you want, it invokes some kind of double standard.

My answer was calling you on your bullshit, and now I’m adding on that the only people who believe that are the ones that cheer on shooting clinic workers and blowing up crowded clinics. What’s your stand on pro-lifers blowing up a building full of pregnant women to make sure the blast gets the workers, BTW?

I bet your answer is something like “Well, those babies were gonna die anyways, but we avenged their killers!”. That’s the answer that best fits your mentality.

Aria: You cannot grasp what I am asking. It has NOTHING to do with the woman or the law. This is about Visitor 55s personal opinion about it. His opinion is that a fetus is not a child or a baby and is not equivalant to a child or a baby and does not have the same rights as a child or a baby. The question is posed to him; Would he treat his OWN unborn child/fetus as a child or a fetus? If it was HIS wife pregnant with HIS child would he want the law to treat his child/fetus murder as a murder or an assault.

U Mad? is just mad because he thought he had a scenario where he could entrap us. The problem is that his comparison doesn’t work. A woman losing her child because she was stabbed is hardly comparable to a situation where she terminated the pregnancy.

I dont think you guys understand my point. Its not about any laws that are in place. This is a question aimed at those that claim a fetus is not a child, not a challenge to any law.

Visitor 55 believes that a fetus is not a child/baby. My question is if it was his wife (and im assuming visitor 55 is a male) that was pregnant with his child (fetus?) and someone attacked her and killed his child (fetus?) in her womb would he personally want the person responsible to be charged with the murder of his unborn child (fetus?) or should the guy ONLY be charged with assaulting his wife?

Im not asking what any law says in any specific state. Im asking your opinion if this happened to you. Your belief is that its not a child/baby. Your belief is that it is a fetus and is not given the same rights as the rest of us. If you believe that a fetus has no right to life and is subject to the whims of the person carrying it then you couldnt support charging your wifes assailant with anything other than assault.

I heard those lies come out of BillO’s pie hole so many times, and it frightened and infuriated me knowing who and how many were watching/believing him.As far as I’m concerned, he bears responsibility for Dr Tiller’s death.

I admit I don’t know who or why in some states have limited abortions to be performed only within the first 12 weeks, but I want to put that aside for a moment.

Billdo has said previously he wouldn’t allow any abortions, except in extreme cases. But he doesn’t stop there. He and his fellow wingnutz also demonized Sandra Fluke and the floozies who want free contraception to continue their life of debauchery.

To be consistent, Billdo The Theologian, also defends the belief that life, human life, starts at conception.

That is the whole beef in a nutshell. The “sanctity of life” and all that.

Actually, any way you cut it… stabbing a pregnant woman that survives is still only aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. There are laws in place that can charge the assailant with the death of the unborn fetus, but only to compound the severity of the crime.

For instance, here in California, we have Penal 187, which can charge someone in the death of an unborn child, but it’s specified as the consequence of unlawful actions against the mother:

So your comparison is false, in more than just the ways the other hounds already pointed out, because, aside from that a woman who wants to keep her baby being assaulted is a false equivalency to abortion, the law isn’t on your side in this in many states:

The question is not about the woman or her choice. Its about your definition of what a baby/fetus is. Your position is that its not a baby, that its a fetus and not given the same rights as what you define as a “child” or “baby”. Meaning you could not call it murder if someone stabbed your pregnant wife in the stomach killing your unborn “fetus”. By your own definition, it would only be an assault on your wife, not a murder of your child.

No, its not stupid. If your belief is that a fetus is not a child or baby until its born then you can only support charging the man with assault, not murder. According to your very definition, the man did not murder your unborn child, he assaulted your wife causing her to abort a fetus, which by your definition, is not really a child or a baby.

When the “mad” troll is willing to be as supportive of life for the POST-fetus baby, then its argument about the fetus itself can be heard out. Unfortunately, like too many anti-choicers, it’s unwilling to give two cents (literally) to the living, breathing, baby once it’s emerged from the woman’s body.

Generally U Mad you don’t abort a fetus at 7 months, there is way too much risk involved for the woman.If there should be an abortion done at that late a stage of pregnancy, you can bet your last dollar something is desperately wrong.A fetus becomes a living breathing baby when it has entered this world and takes its first breath,as the fetus grows inside the mothers body it depends totally on the females body to get the nourishment to grow into the image of a human form.
Most abortions are performed in the first period of the pregnancy when it has not nearly formed into a human form,the decision to abort a fetus is between the people involved and ,nobody should sit in judgement of those who make that decision.In the not so far past abortions were given by quacks in back alleys with a coathanger at great risk to the females physical,mental and emotional health.
I don’t know your age but it seems that you are an older man who has been brought up with the Bible and have not allowed yourself to get educated with modern science,this is your choice ,and that’s fine ,but don’t sit in judgement of others who don’t think the way you do.
I believe that it says somewhere things like glass houses and casting stones etc.etc.

Let me ask you this: If your wife was 7 months pregnant and someone stabbed her in her stomach, killing your unborn child, should that person be charged with the murder of your child or only charged with assault against your wife? Should he get 30 years for murder or probation for assault?

People who support abortion insist on not calling them babies or children for one reason; it makes it easier for you to justify murdering them. But no matter what you call them, it doenst change what they are. They are children. Babies. The most vunerable humans of all.

How is “Baby killer” a Nazi analogy when the mans job was literally to kill babies? That’s what he did. He took a woman that was pregnant (with what? A puppy? A kitty-cat?) and killed her unborn child for her. I would have to say that’s pretty much a baby killer.